Sitting date: 6 November 2025

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Internal Affairs

1. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: How many breakdowns have there been of fire appliances nationwide since January 2025, and how many of them have caused delays in getting to a fire?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Minister of Internal Affairs): Fire and Emergency (FENZ) inherited a faulty logging and tracking system from 2017. This means it has a highly manual process for reporting data, and while I've asked Fire and Emergency for this information and they've been working on gathering the information on the nature of the breakdowns, they were not able to provide data, as the system does not support that. A full system replacement is planned for the next financial year to modernise how faults are reported, tracked, and resolved. This will significantly improve the information Fire and Emergency can access about fleet issues and how quickly we can do that. It's important to note that Fire and Emergency New Zealand sends multiple trucks to an incident, and a breakdown does not necessarily mean that there is a delay in getting firefighters and resources to that incident.

Teanau Tuiono: Are firefighters currently adequately resourced to do their jobs safely?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes. I know that there is a lot of publicity, and the Professional Firefighters Union have been publicising a lot of faults that have occurred. However, I think it's important to put it in context: there are 1,300 fire trucks, and they do 180,000 calls a year, or around 500 a day, throughout the country. So when you see various numbers thrown around about faults, notwithstanding the challenges with recording them and getting accurate data, it does have to be put in the context of the number of trucks and the number of call outs.

Teanau Tuiono: Can she confirm that in the past year, the fire appliance servicing provider for Auckland alone has done 446 emergency call outs—more than one a day—due to breakdowns of the ageing fleet, and how does that give confidence?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No, I can't confirm that number. That would be a number from a contractor who is hired by Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and I would just put in context that whether or not that figure is accurate, it should still be put in the context of the number of trucks and the number of call outs. The other question I would raise about that figure is whether that relates to faults or to routine maintenance designed to prevent faults.

Teanau Tuiono: Can the Minister guarantee that FENZ's efforts to reportedly save $50 million a year will not impact the provision of emergency services and the recruitment of new firefighters, as agreed in the 2022 negotiations between the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union and FENZ; and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: What I can guarantee is that we're going to have a very efficient fire service, I say on behalf of the Minister, who has made it clear to the fire service that they are using money that comes from New Zealanders' insurance levies. If that amount of money is to increase, then we need to get value. It's long been believed that there are savings to be made in the management and the administration of firefighting, and perhaps the member might imagine that the improvement in the reporting of faults is an example of how critical investments that weren't made from 2017 to 2023—six years after the merger with the volunteer firefighters was done—will now be done to make the fire service more efficient.

Teanau Tuiono: What evidence does the Minister have to show firefighters have safe working conditions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The firefighters certainly do have safe working conditions, even though danger is inherent in what they do, and I've said at various times that the firefighters are just about the only people I can think of whose whole job is to go into unsafe environments. In every other workplace in New Zealand, almost, the purpose of the job is to remove safety hazards and ensure that the workplace is safe. However, firefighters go into dangerous places. Their job is inherently dangerous, and that's why it's important to equip them well.

Teanau Tuiono: Why is the focus of FENZ on saving money rather than making investments into the key functions of the organisation, which requires new appliances, better resourcing, and more recruitment to continue to enable our firefighters to keep our community safe, especially in the face of more frequent and severe climate-charged weather events?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I can't help but notice that a piece of paper with the questions is continually being passed to the member by Chlöe Swarbrick, to his left. I was thinking why didn't she answer the question herself, and then I thought about question time yesterday and I think I know why.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister doesn't have ministerial responsibility for the Green Party and the way we conduct—

SPEAKER: No, he doesn't, and I was about to chip in on that particular point. If there is a question that can be answered in the public good, make sure you do so, briefly.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes. The member asked off the page why are we focusing on cost savings instead of investment, and the answer to that is very simple. The answer is that we are investing $20 million to $25 million a year in new fire trucks. We are getting more resources to the front line and less in the back office right across this Government, and so it's actually possible to do both: to save money, and to invest in things that fix what matters.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Our firefighters are in danger.

SPEAKER: Good—that's really interesting. Take a call if you want to make a comment. Question No. 2, Catherine Wedd—when we're all quiet.

Question No. 2—Economic Growth

2. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Economic Growth: What action is the Government taking to increase supermarket competition as well as drive economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): I have heard loud and clear from potential competitors in the grocery market that consenting, zoning, complexity, and lengthy approval processes are getting in the way of them taking on the major incumbents. So we are removing barriers and building the foundations for more competition in our grocery market. Today, the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill will be read in this House for the first time. The bill helps create a consenting express lane for new supermarkets that will improve competition. That is great news for Kiwi shoppers.

Catherine Wedd: How does the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill address supermarket competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The bill makes clear that grocery developers can access the fast-track approvals regime if their new supermarket will improve competition. To qualify, projects will have to demonstrate how they align with the Government policy statement on grocery competition, which accompanies the bill. If they do that, competitors can bypass the standard, lengthy resource consent process and instead be referred to a fast-track expert panel. This will simplify what can be a years' long process into one that could be wrapped up in a few short months. Any member in this House that says they want shoppers to get fairer prices should support that bill.

Catherine Wedd: What other changes help create the consenting express lane for new supermarkets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is also streamlining consenting processes to encourage grocery competition. The Minister for Building and Construction is making regulatory changes so that grocery developers will be able to get standardised grocery building designs approved. The Government is introducing a nationwide building consenter for competition-enhancing grocery development. As a result of all these changes, we expect a grocery development could obtain all of the necessary consents in a year or less, well under the current average of 18 months and a million dollars in cost reported by the Commerce Commission. Our goal is a more competitive grocery market that delivers better prices and more choice for Kiwi shoppers. It will be up to private organisations to decide whether they want to build; we're ensuring there are no barriers in the way.

Catherine Wedd: How will the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill support economic growth and job creation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The bill also further strengthens the fast-track regime to get more developments consented and drive economic growth and job creation. The Auckland Port expansion, which has already been consented under fast track, is expected to deliver between $2.5 billion and $6.5 billion to the New Zealand economy as well as supporting 140,000 jobs over the next 30 years. The Milldale housing development will deliver 1,100 new homes in Auckland, contributing nearly half a billion dollars to the economy and supporting 3,550 new jobs. Maitahi Village—

SPEAKER: Good, we'll just—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: [Member makes a hand gesture]—will deliver hundreds of new homes in Nelson, supporting 2,700 jobs—

Hon Members: Woah!

Hon Member: What was that?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry—

Hon Member: Speak to the hand!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That was not what that was intended to mean. But members opposite voted against fast track and against the creation of those jobs. If they want more New Zealanders in work—

SPEAKER: Good. That's enough—that's enough.

Question No. 3—Education

3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: Was it his intention in reinstating the charter school model that a community group could mount a takeover bid of a State school without the support of that school; if so, has such a takeover bid been made regarding Kelston Boys' High School?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I reject the terminology "a takeover bid". An application has been made to the Authorisation Board from a community member with support of a sponsor to convert Kelston Boys' High School to charter school status. This is permitted under the Education and Training Act, which sets out that any entity may apply to convert a State or State integrated school to a charter school so long as the applicant is the school's board or one or more members of the school community. In both cases, the support of the proposed sponsor is also required. The Authorisation Board must take into account the level of support from the school community, staff, and students for the proposed sponsor and the level of support from the school community, school staff, and students for the proposed conversion of the school to a charter school. It does this through a consultation process. At this point, while an application has been received, there has been no consideration of community support by the Authorisation Board yet, and I certainly look forward to seeing how they consider that. But I reiterate, this is occurring within a school community; it is not a takeover.

SPEAKER: OK, that was a very long answer. Ministers would be advised to shorten up answers to match the pithiness of the questions.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he aware of the stress, anxiety, and concern this bid has already caused in the community and school even without an application being approved?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It comes down, in some ways, to the role of a local MP at times like this. You can either choose to explain the process and help people understand what is happening or you can whip up stress and anxiety. I would ask—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order. My question is in relation to his ministerial portfolio. I didn't ask him to explain what a local MP's responsibilities are, because I know those.

SPEAKER: That's quite right and the Minister will confine himself to responsibilities directly relating to the portfolio.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is material to the situation that the way that leaders in the community interpret it will have an impact on the people surrounding them.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Should an organisation such as the Bangerz Education and Wellbeing Trust, a group that is not qualified to teach children, be able to make a takeover bid of a prominent State school?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: First of all, it's not a takeover bid, as I've reiterated. Second of all, the decision over whether they should become a sponsor of a converted State school is one that rests with the Authorisation Board, led by a very prominent and successful former school principal, a number of educators, and people with experience in a range of communities and in business. This is a group of people who will be assessing very carefully any application for a charter school, of which there's been over 100 of various kinds already. They will be taking into account community support. If an application to convert does not have community support, then I think they'd be very unlikely to approve it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he believe that a group such as the Bangerz Education and Wellbeing Trust is an appropriate group to be trusted with the care and wellbeing of young people in our schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: At the risk of repetition, I've addressed that question by saying it is a quick decision that is put with the Authorisation Board. That board has a range of very experienced educators on it who will make a judgment such as that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What options would parents have to send their children to State schools if the bid were successful, given Kelston Boys' High School is zoned and all nearby schools, including Avondale High School, are oversubscribed?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, they would retain the right to go to that school, because if the community has decided that they don't like the way the school is being run now—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—just a moment. If you want the answer, listen.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: If the community has supported the conversion, and strong community support is a condition that the authorisation board would look at under the law, then you would expect the community would be happy—they would see the school as being improved by its conversion to charter status. And here's the difference: on the one hand, it's State provision and unionism no matter how many kids fail; on this side, we believe in the right of children to an education that extends them—

SPEAKER: Good—that's enough.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —to the fullest of their powers, no matter what the provision model.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why has he set up a model where anyone can attempt to take over a State school, forcing that school to defend their preferred status as a State school, diverting attention away from teaching and learning?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, first of all, I actually have not done that. You have to be part of the school community or the school board, so it's not anyone. All one needs to do to understand that is read the Education Act. That member was in the House when the Education Act was amended to add these conditions, so she should know that. Second of all, there will be some State schools which, frankly, would be better off if they did convert. And this is my point: defending failing schools on ideological grounds—

SPEAKER: No. No, that's enough.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —at all costs has damaged generations of children.

SPEAKER: No, that's enough.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he review his charter school policy, given the upheaval this has caused, to ensure no other school has to go through the same experience as Kelston Boys' High School?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: If this keeps up, I'm going to be more worried about the patsy question from Parmjeet Parmar. Frankly—

SPEAKER: No—no.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —we're not going to—

SPEAKER: No—sorry.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —make changes. The stress—

SPEAKER: Sorry. Don't preface questions with that sort of comment. It's very, very disorderly, and I know that you want the House to be far more orderly. Please just answer the straight question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he apologise to the students, parents, and teachers of Kelston Boys' High School for the impact his educational experiments have had on them, like the food in schools debacle and the attempted charter school takeover?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: In answer to the first leg of the question, no, because, as I said in my opening remarks to this series of questions, I'm not sure that the concern and anxiety is entirely caused by the sponsor; it appears to be whipped up by their local MP. In answer to the second leg of the question, that's not actually in line with the question that was initially asked—the primary—but, actually, the healthy school lunch programme has saved an enormous amount of money and delivered the same quality. If the Labour Party had done it the way this Government has—

SPEAKER: Yeah—good.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —they would have saved those children—

SPEAKER: That's fine.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: $800 million—

SPEAKER: That's enough!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —of Government debt.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I'm almost inclined just to skip a Government question because the Government is not behaving in a fashion that would be reasonable in these circumstances. However, we'll try again.

Question No. 4—Conservation

4. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has he made about the Hauraki Gulf/Te Pātaka kai o Tīkapa Moana?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): E te Māngai o te Whare. Last week I announced the biggest step in a generation to restore the Hauraki Gulf/Te Pātaka kai o Tīkapa Moana, and help bring the mauri and the life back to the water, create jobs, and strengthen connections between people and place. The Government is investing $6 million in tourism-focused infrastructure in the gulf, as well as committing $10.5 million to operationalise the legislation. In addition, the NEXT Foundation is investing up to $20 million in reef restoration. I'd just like to acknowledge, at this time, the recent passing of Chris Barfoot QSM who was instrumental in establishing the Tahuna Torea reserve in Glendowie, near the gulf.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What new opportunities does the International Visitor Levy (IVL) investment create for the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Government's $6 million investment from the International Visitor Levy will enhance access to the Hauraki Gulf by upgrading tracks, wharves, and water systems on iconic islands like Rangitoto, also known as Ngā Pona-toru-a-Peretū; Tiritiri Matangi; Te Kawau Tumaro o Toi, also known as Kawau Island; and Te Motutapu a Taikehu, Motutapu Island. These upgrades support more than 150,000 manuhiri who travel to these islands annually. Works are under way.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How does the philanthropic commitment build on the Government's IVL funding for the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Many, many people know about the chaotic havoc caused by kina barrens in the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana. The philanthropic commitment compliments our Government's investment by extending the reef restoration across the new protection areas. The NEXT Foundation is starting with $2 million in pilot projects around Te Hauturu-o-Toi, also known as Little Barrier Island; Otata, Motuhoropapa, and The Noises, and Raupōiti or Administration Bay out at Motutapu. Philanthropy, Government, and iwi will work together to restore the Gulf's ecosystems from the seabed up, and by combining IVL-funded infrastructure with privately funded restoration, we're building a full circle approach.

SPEAKER: Good. Brevity's a really good thing.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What wider work is being supported, through the IVL, across the Department of Conservation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The IVL is driving significant on the ground conservation and tourism investment across the motu, for example up at Raukūmara up in Ngāti Porou and Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, with forest regeneration and species protection, more support for wilding pines in the Branch Leatham and Mackenzie Basins, and other areas throughout the country, and also—s heard earlier this week—those famous cycleways in the Ruapehu district with Ngati Rangi and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua.

Question No. 5—Education

5. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the president of Te Whakarōpūtanga Kaitiaki Kura o Aotearoa – New Zealand School Boards Association, Meredith Kennett, that "to understand attendance and achievement statistics for rangatahi Māori, you have to understand our history – and that includes Te Tiriti"; if so, how does she justify her decision to remove the Te Tiriti o Waitangi requirement from education governance?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Understanding history and the Treaty are very different things than having a legal obligation to give effect to the Treaty. Elected parents to a school board should not be delegated what is a core Crown responsibility. We are ensuring that that accountability, for giving effect to the Treaty, sits where it belongs—with the Crown—so that school boards focus on their core roles: ensuring children are turning up to school, progressing in their learning, they're safe and succeeding. We want school boards to have clear expectations about their role in supporting equal outcomes for tamariki Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Minister have evidence that shows stripping Te Tiriti obligations will improve outcomes for Māori students; or is this a purely ideological and anti-Māori policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In relation to the first part of the question, the evidence that I hold is that tamariki Māori achievement has been declining for decades. If you want to talk about a Treaty breach—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on a moment. That's utterly ridiculous. If you have a question, take one of your supplementaries and ask it. Don't barrack it across the House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We can't hear the Minister—I don't believe her microphone is on.

SPEAKER: Of course you can't. When you're yelling in your own microphone, of course you're not going to hear it.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, the information that I do have is that achievement data for tamariki Māori has been declining for decades; the gap is yawning. If we want to talk about a Treaty breach, that is it. The evidence that I have is that only 10 percent of Māori students are at curriculum for mathematics by the time they go to high school; 78 percent are more than a year behind; and everything that we're doing—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We truly are struggling to hear the Minister, and we're quiet on this side.

SPEAKER: OK, then. We'll come back to the question in a few minutes. We'll see if the audio people can raise the volume on that microphone. We'll move to question No. 6.

Question No. 6—Health

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Dr Verrall, sorry. No talking at all while a question is being asked.

6. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): On behalf of the Minister of Health, yes. For example, we stand by this Government's commitment to raising immunisation rates for measles. When the Government changed, the time before last, in 2017-18, we had 92.4 percent vaccinated; however, by 2023, something had happened for six years, and it was only 77.1 percent. Since then, we have raised vaccination rates to 82 percent, and while typically there will be 3,000 immunisations per week, lately we've been seeing over 2,500 immunisations each day. I think everybody should reflect carefully on the moral imperative not to take your eye off the ball on immunisation, as happened in those years. It leaves all of us more vulnerable.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it still his position that he won't make cervical screening free for all who need it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The current Government policy is not being changed or discussed at this point, but it could be. The only thing I will say to the member is that there is a choice between screening programmes and treatments, and also screening other illnesses. If we were to put more money into screening, that would take money away from other things we can do, including funding treatment for those women who are unlucky enough to test positive for cervical cancer.

SPEAKER: I think that was a long enough answer. If the member wants answers to her questions, it would be nice to listen to the answers.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why should women have to pay for cervical screening when every other screening programme is free?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Government faces choices in everything it does, in every service that it offers. There are a range of services—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait. Do we want to end the question? Because there's obviously no desire to hear the answer.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There's no question that, in a perfect world, everything would be free of charge, but unfortunately we don't live in that world. We each have to make choices in our households, in our companies, and, indeed, in Government.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why won't he act on the recommendations of two parliamentary review committees to make cervical screening free for all who need it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Health, for the reasons that I have given, about having to make difficult choices, and something like, for example, extending a free screening programme means there is less money for other things, including treating those women who sometimes, unfortunately, have positive tests for cervical screening.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he join me in advocating for 90 percent of girls to be vaccinated for HPV so that New Zealand can eliminate cervical cancer?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Health, if I wanted to join someone to promote vaccination and immunisation, it most certainly would not be the person who was a Minister of Health in a Government that saw measles immunisation plummet. We are facing an outbreak where three- to eight-year-olds are more vulnerable because, when they were young, those turkeys were in Government, and—

SPEAKER: No, that's enough. Just don't use commentary like that. It will just cause problems.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will the Minister commit to providing colposcopies for more than 2,000 women overdue for one, as any delays increase their risk of developing cancer?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Again, I am not going to start making health funding decisions on behalf of the health Minister here in the House. What I can say is that the Government has increased funding for healthcare from $30 billion to around $32 billion in the last two years. We have significantly increased the amount of money that goes into healthcare, as we have attempted to clean up an enormous mess in administration. For example, it is sadly still the case that each region of the country has a different patient record system, and if you find yourself out of town and in a car crash and in hospital, they may have to email your home town to find your patient records. I was talking to a doctor who actually has a surgery on the border between Auckland and Waikato and half his patients are on one system; the other, he didn't have the records for. Thankfully for that doctor we've fixed it, and we'll continue fixing what matters so that the health system actually gets value for money.

Question No. 5 (continued)—Education

SPEAKER: We'll go back to Question No. 5. There is nothing wrong with the microphone. I'll ask the Minister to speak into it, but we will hear the answers in silence.

5. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Education: Can the Minister name a single Māori organisation, iwi, or education expert who supports her decision, and will she table any consultation documents showing that Māori were actually listened to?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This was an issue that was raised last year during consultation on the bill that's currently making its way through Parliament. It was then decided that that would then go to a process undertaken by Minister Paul Goldsmith around the Treaty principles. When that report came back, it did make a recommendation that it is questionable for school boards to be delegated a core Crown duty and then Cabinet made that decision.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What message does the Minister think this sends to tamariki Māori sitting in classrooms today, that their language, their culture, and identity no longer belong in the system meant to uplift them?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It doesn't send that message at all. In fact, it strengthens the fact that we expect school boards to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students, to take all reasonable steps to provide teaching and learning in te reo Māori, and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices for their schools reflect New Zealand's cultural diversity. But more than that, what it sends is the signal that we take our core Crown responsibility for upholding the Treaty very seriously when it comes to raising achievement for Māori students.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I'll just make the point that we are listening to these answers in silence. That means you don't speak.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh sorry, I didn't mean to do that.

SPEAKER: No, well, I will now tell you very specifically without naming you, which is very generous on my part. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—last one.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: When the Minister said her Government is "getting back to basics", on 29 April 2024, did she mean erasing Māori language, Māori knowledge, and te Tiriti o Waitangi from the basics of our national identity?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No. What I meant was that I was going to uphold my core Crown duty under section 32 of the Education Act to ensure that we are abiding by the principles of the Treaty of Watitangi. The core tenet of that is to raise Māori achievement at school like no other Government has managed to do for a very long time. It's really evident, because we're focused on a knowledge-rich curriculum and great teaching and learning in the classroom, that in fact Māori meeting expectations for early phonics has gone from 25 percent in term one to 43 percent in term three. Our Māori kids are reading better than they ever have under this Government, because we take our responsibilities very seriously.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that all of her excellent education reforms have been signed off by a Cabinet with no less than seven Māori members and that perhaps the views put about in the House today are not the way all Māori think?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We do have an exceptionally diverse caucus, including a number of Māori Ministers who did sign off this decision, and all back me in my education reforms to make sure that all students, but especially tamariki Māori who have been falling behind in academic achievement, are all reaching their full potential. We are the first Government in a very long time to see any of those results turn around.

Question No. 7—Mental Health

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): To the Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Costley. When questions are being asked, no one else is talking on either side of the House.

7. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made about delivering a better mental health crisis response?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Our mental health plan is focused on delivering results: faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response. Yesterday, the focus was on creating a better crisis response. I announced a $61.6 million funding boost that will provide additional front-line workers for crisis assessment teams, new peer-led acute alternative services, additional peer support workers in hospital emergency departments, and more crisis recovery cafes. When someone takes the brave step of reaching out, I want that support to be there.

Tim Costley: What new peer-led crisis services will be delivered?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our mental health plan is working. We see reducing wait times and increased workforce. Since coming into Government, the peer support lived experience workforce has grown by almost 100 percent. Three more emergency departments will receive peer support workers on top of the eight emergency departments already launched. Two new peer-led crisis recovery cafes will be rolled out, bringing the total to eight new cafes across the country. We're also establishing two new 10-bed peer-led acute alternative services to reduce in-patient ward admissions. To deliver a better crisis response, we want to ensure there is someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere to go.

Tim Costley: How does this announcement build on a better crisis response in Budget 2025?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: One of my top priorities is to improve access to timely mental health and addiction support. In Budget 2025, we announced $28 million to roll out ten co-response mental health teams around the country to respond to 111 mental health distress calls and also an additional crisis helpline capacity of 20,000 contacts. We've also implemented a 60-minute handover from police to emergency department workers for people arriving in distress. When someone takes that brave step to reach out, whether it's your child, a friend, or a family member, this Government is committed to ensuring the right support is in place.

Tim Costley: How will this announcement deliver more front-line workers?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've always been open that one of the biggest barriers to timely mental health and addiction support in New Zealand is too many workforce vacancies. Part of this funding will add an additional 40 front-line workers to crisis assessment and treatment teams nationwide. These are front-line professionals who respond to acute mental health issues. We don't want people in distress waiting long periods of time for a crisis assessment. Their job is to assess risk, stabilise people in crisis, and connect them to ongoing care, resulting in faster access to support. When someone takes the brave step of reaching out for support, workforce should never be a barrier.

Question No. 8—Infrastructure

8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he stand by his statement that the Government's infrastructure pipeline "will create thousands of employment opportunities for New Zealanders"; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Yes is the short answer, because the Government has a large infrastructure pipeline that will generate thousands of jobs as the pipeline is unveiled and rolled out.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many jobs will be generated from the Government's list of infrastructure projects by Christmas?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, if the member's referring to the $7 billion initiatives that we announced in, I think it was, July, roughly for every billion dollars, around 4,500 jobs are created. Specific projects vary, clearly, but that's a rough estimate that the Infrastructure Commission has devised. So, the member can do the math—I hope.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of Order, Mr Speaker. That was a pretty clear question.

SPEAKER: Yes, it was, and the answer was correct there as well.

Hon Ginny Andersen: So, is he unable—

SPEAKER: Have you got another supplementary?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Alright, sure.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many of the thousands of jobs he promised in July 2025 have been delivered to date?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the thing about $7 billion of infrastructure is that it takes time to roll them out.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You said by Christmas!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, $7 billion of projects starting by Christmas. To give the member one example that I think she knows well, the Melling Interchange, for example—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That's going to see the termination of the question if we can't behave.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP:—is a seven-year build. Ōtaki to North Levin is a, roughly, five-and-half-year build. The level crossing programme in Auckland is, again, a four-to-five-year build. You can't turn these things on straight away. They ramp up over time. The point is there's billions of dollars of construction jobs coming into the market over the next few years. Some of the projects will take two years; others will take quite a long time. The point is they're starting, which is in contradistinction to the previous Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What constitutes the beginning of an infrastructure project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Normally, when me or another Minister goes and turns a sod.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he be clear to the House that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on, sorry. What makes people think they can talk during a question?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he be clear that he is telling New Zealanders that the beginning of an infrastructure project constitutes him turning up in a high-vis with a shovel?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It's difficult how to know to answer this question without causing embarrassment to the member. What happens is an agency or the Government appropriates money, then there are business cases done, then construction funding is confirmed, either by Cabinet or in relation to the new transport agency, for example, or the particular Government department, then a contractor is arranged and then contracted, then, at some point, a project actually starts. Now, it may surprise the member to learn, because the last Government didn't do a lot of this, Ministers normally like to turn up to the start of projects that they've had some involvement in funding to make sure they get built. So, projects start, literally, when contractors arrive on site and start drilling holes and digging dirt. That's what construction starting means.

SPEAKER: That will do. I think that's it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many of the projects listed under his press release in July 2025 meet the criteria he just laid out?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, of all the projects that have started, all of them. There are some—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many is that? None.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We haven't reached the end of the year, yet, and there is a range of projects yet to come.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about land transport rules?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport): Last week, the excellent and eloquent Minister of Transport, Chris Bishop, and I announced the beginning of public consultation on three significant areas of work on land transport rules. Consultation will focus on the frequency and inspection requirements for warrants of fitness (WOF) and certificates of fitness A, heavy vehicle permitting, and the consideration of potential additional safety requirements for vehicles entering the fleet.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government consulting on changes for warrants of fitness and certificates of fitness?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: New Zealand currently has one of the most frequent regimes globally, and we want to make sure that we are not placing unnecessary costs or time pressures on Kiwis, while still keeping everyone safe on the road. The Government is looking at how other jurisdictions handle this—for example, Europe checks light vehicles every two years, and most states in Australia and provinces in Canada actually only require a warrant of fitness when a vehicle changes ownership or when a defect is identified.

Rima Nakhle: What will these changes mean for vehicle owners?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: These changes will save Kiwis from having to renew their WOF every year. They reflect the fact that many of our vehicles that are actually aged 4 to 10 years don't require annual warrants of fitness. Just like the changes made by Minister Bishop to the warrant of fitness frequency changes for vintage vehicles, we are taking a modern approach, which will see Kiwis save more time and money each year.

Rima Nakhle: How can people have their say on these changes?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Kiwis can have their say by submitting their thoughts to the New Zealand Transport Agency. Consultation opened last Wednesday and closes on 17 December. Following feedback from the public, a new rule could be potentially in place by the middle of next year.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: What is the total amount that the Crown has paid for Transmission Gully to date, including settlements, and what is the annual amount of the quarterly payments to the Wellington Gateway Partnership?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): The cost of Transmission Gully to the Crown is $1.25 billion, and the average annual unitary charge paid to Wellington Gateway Partnership is $113 million. The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) reached a confidential commercial settlement with Wellington Gateway Partnership and its subcontractors in December 2024. The agreement resolved all disputes and ended ongoing High Court litigation. NZTA now has direct responsibility for completing the remaining works, and a greater role in maintenance and operations. The financial details of the settlement are commercially sensitive and subject to non-disclosure agreements. I will say, though, that the settlement does not increase the cost for taxpayers.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is the cost of rebuilding 6 kilometres of Transmission Gully included within the $32 million budgeted for this year's routine maintenance and resurfacing, and, if not, what is the additional cost of this work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The cost of the work the member is talking about is covered by the settlement.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can the public know what the total cost of Transmission Gully is to the Crown, and the ongoing cost, if the settlement is confidential?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I think I've answered that in my primary answer, that the cost was $1.25 billion and the average annual unitary charge paid to Wellington Gateway Partnership is $113 million for the life of the rest of the contract. The settlement that has been reached between NZTA and the Wellington Gateway Partnership and its subcontractors in December last year is commercial in confidence.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So does the $1.25 billion total cost include the 25 years of annual payments of $113 million?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So $113 million every year for 25 years, in addition to the $1.25 billion, is what the taxpayers will be paying for Transmission Gully—and does that include ongoing operations and maintenance costs that NZTA is now responsible for?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The unitary payment for the life of the contract is lower now, as a result of the commercial settlement, because NZTA is now bearing the responsibility for operations and maintenance. The original inception of the public-private partnership (PPP) was for the partnership to be responsible for that. Because of the commercial settlement, NZTA is now responsible, and that is that is borne out in the unitary payment amount going forward.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can New Zealanders have confidence in the use of PPPs for multibillion-dollar highways—like the one in the north of the Auckland region from Warkworth to Te Hana—when it was a National Government that signed a contract for Transmission Gully, which is clearly going to cost far more to the taxpayer than was originally envisaged?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member, I think, confuses a few things. There have been two independent reviews into Transmission Gully, including by the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, and they concluded that the PPP model is not the root cause of Transmission Gully's delays and cost overruns. Interestingly, one of the issues that actually caused many of the delays around Transmission Gully was consenting; getting the resource consents for quite a complex piece of work in—anyone who's driven through it will know—difficult terrain was time-consuming and extremely expensive, and then COVID happened in the middle of it, which also put pressure on it. The PPP model was not the cause of much of what the member is complaining about—and, in fact, successive reviews have said that.

Question No. 11—Acting Prime Minister

11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of the Government's statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I stand by this Government's commitment to cutting red tape and making it easier for New Zealanders to work and provide for themselves and their families—for example, the Government is repealing and replacing the Holidays Act 2003, a law so complicated even Government departments have struggled to follow it, with all their resources and proximity to the Government. Employers will, instead, have certainty with straightforward rules, and workers and businesses alike will benefit from leave payments being simple and predictable. We're replacing the Resource Management Act—relevant to the previous question—which was massively pushing up the cost of getting things like roads done. We've repealed, largely, the earthquake-prone buildings laws for putting massive costs on New Zealanders for next to no benefit.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the Government doing to improve the justice system and keep New Zealanders safe?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Government has decided to adopt a philosophy that it is the right of New Zealanders to be safe, not to be victims, and to be supported if they are victims, while the Government's role is to ensure there are consequences for criminals. The court system, under our Minister for Courts, who happens to be here beside me, Nicole McKee, has now had a 20 percent reduction in the District Court criminal-case backlog, because justice delayed is justice denied. In addition to that, we've seen the total prison population at 10,800, up 1,700 since the Government took office. Previously, there was a policy to let them out and see what happened. Now, we are locking people up if they harm their fellow New Zealanders.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is the Government focusing the education system on student achievement?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We've traversed this already in question time, but the changes that we've heard about already: having a curriculum that is rich in content; taught by a knowledgeable teacher, standing at the front of one classroom, not three joined together; and tested by exams where you actually can't dodge the hard bits—that is how you transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Not to mention continually rising school-attendance rates; because it's hard to learn when you're at school, but it is impossible if you don't go.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the Government doing to rebalance the New Zealand history curriculum?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, under the previous Government, we saw a history curriculum, I would say, imposed on the New Zealand student body that said things like, "Māori history is the foundational and continuous history of Aotearoa—"

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We've traversed this matter a number of times, but in this particular instance, this is coming from a Minister who you have warned a number of times today alone—

SPEAKER: Yeah—just make your point, don't start giving me a lecture on how to operate.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The Minister is quite clearly—

SPEAKER: There are people speaking while a point of order is on.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —using a question from his own side to literally express his opinions, and he shouldn't be allowed to.

SPEAKER: Yes, that's right, and I was about to curtail that. So is there another supplementary? Good. We'll go to question No. 12—Tangi Utikere.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by the Government's Roads of National Significance programme; if so, how much of that programme has been fully funded to date?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Yes, the Government's committed to building a long-term pipeline of transport infrastructure investments to address our deficit and build jobs and growth. Our roads of national significance programme is a key part of this pipeline. As the member knows, $1.2 billion was announced last month to get on with getting these projects ready for delivery. In response to the second part of the member's question, the following projects are fully funded and currently in delivery: Ōtaki to North of Levin; State Highway 29 Tauriko West stage one, Ōmanawa Bridge replacement; Hawke's Bay Expressway stage one; the Takitimu North Link stage one. They are fully funded and currently being delivered.

Tangi Utikere: Of the $1.2 billion that he's just referred to, how much of that is actually going towards construction, rather than just planning, consenting, and property purchases, especially when the full programme is projected to cost up to $54 billion?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I don't have the exact breakdown in front of me, but there will be some early works included within that, but we can get back to the member on that. But the bulk of the money is for consenting and designations. I know that the member may not like to hear this, but, actually, you can't just turn up tomorrow and build a road; these are complex operations—you need land, you need consents, you need designations, you need root protection, you need seismic work, you need geological testing. All that work has to happen. I know the other guys don't like hearing it because they didn't build anything, but that's actually what building a road involves.

Tangi Utikere: Why is he announcing multibillion-dollar projects without any funding for construction, which will only mislead communities into expecting local jobs that will never eventuate?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm not. I'm announcing funding to get the work ready for projects that will come up for funding in due course. What the sector has said to us, and what the public has said to us repeatedly—and I'm sure they've said it to that member as well—is that the public wants a long-term infrastructure pipeline of transport projects. They want a 10-, 20-, and 30-year vision, and that is exactly what we are creating.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Announcements with no money.

SPEAKER: That's enough.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You cannot create an infrastructure pipeline without the necessary work to build it.

Tangi Utikere: If these projects are not fully financed, isn't the promise of thousands of regional infrastructure jobs effectively just a mirage?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, some of the projects that the member talks about are in delivery right now and creating thousands of regional infrastructure jobs. So, for example, Ōtaki to North Levin; the Hawke's Bay Expressway, for which the sod turning is very soon—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What about the other ones?

SPEAKER: Sorry. Look, I'm sorry. Stop. That's got to stop. It's just constant all the time, and it adds nothing. The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I mean, I'm—

SPEAKER: No, just don't make any comment; just answer the question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I'd just invite the member to go and visit the Takitimu North Link stage one project, which is under way right now. There's hundreds, probably thousands of people working on that, let alone before you count all the spin-off jobs of all the people who are working outside the north of Tauranga, working on that really important project.

Tangi Utikere: Why has Waka Kotahi started using a 60-year time frame and a much lower 1.5 to 2 percent discount rate when working out whether his roads are worth it, and how would those projects stack up if the previous settings of 30 years and 6 percent discount were still used?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is following Treasury guidance in relation to that. That decision was made by Treasury, so NZTA is following the rules set down by Treasury in the appropriate way. I'm not an expert on these matters but, as I understand it, it goes to the fact that roads have a social good component as well, other than just economic, to the extent that you can bifurcate between economic and social—that's as I understand it. But the other thing I would say is that BCRs—or benefit-cost ratios—as I think the member knows, are not the be-all and end-all of everything. Take one notable example that I've talked about before: the Northern Busway across the harbour bridge in Auckland, back in 2007, had a BCR of just over one. That has been the single most successful transport project in New Zealand history in terms of deferred maintenance on the Harbour Bridge and extending the life of the asset. If you actually analysed it properly, it would have a benefit-cost ratio of, I would argue, probably well over 10. But when it was actually analysed, it had one of 1.1. Sometimes, dynamic effects of building projects create jobs and growth in ways that you don't expect and can't be captured by strict economic models, which is why the Government's view is that BCRs are useful but they are not a strict Bible to follow.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good.

Tangi Utikere: Does he seriously expect road users, like Northlanders, to pay $60 to $80 in tolls, every time they drive between Whangārei and Auckland, to cover his funding shortfall, when that project alone is projected to cost up to $22 billion and carry 10,000 vehicles a day?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, and that's not the proposition. We've always said that tolling makes a contribution towards funding of roads and allows them to be brought forward and also to cover the ongoing operations and maintenance in relation to roads. But the idea that any road would be fully covered or funded by the tolling revenue that would come from that is not accurate and it would be unlikely to ever happen.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. If there are people who need to leave the House for other business, please take 30 seconds to do so before I call Mike Davidson for his maiden statement. That means leave the House without discussion on the way.

© Scoop Media